A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 25, 2005A new high (or low?) for Election reformThe AZ Republic reports that the Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission, Arizona's tax-funded election funding commission, has moved to take away the Arizona House seat of David Burrell Smith for overspending by $6000. The vote in the commission was unanimous, 5-0. He was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and repay over $34,000 of public money spent in the '04 campaign. Unknow to this Arizona voter (no I'm not in Smith's district) the penalty for overspending the publically funded limit by more than 10% is removal from office. And apparently Smith, like all publically-funded candidates, signed a sworn affidavit acknowledging the possible penalties. I have to admit I'm impressed that they, the Commission, can/have taken a tough stance on cheaters AND I'm concerned that this in not what voters had in mind when they went to publically funded elections. As an aside, when Smith's chief defender, his accountant, was asked about the "forces" behind this, he cited two: the Arizona Republic and Planned Parenthood. I guess those bogeymen will play well in his district. Posted by c3 at March 25, 2005 08:42 AMComments
I can't say that I'm familiar with Arizona's election laws, but this is certainly interesting... Has the law withstood any major court challenges? I know in the past, judges have been very reluctant to overturn the results of elections. I'm not sure how this would play into that reluctance... It does seem like a rather harsh penalty considering some of the things that national politicians have gotten away with, but if that's the law, they may have to look at whether or not the punishment fits the crime. Posted by: AH at March 25, 2005 09:05 AMThere is a question as to whether it's constitutional to kick the guy out of office. There is a separation of powers issue, ie, whether an independent commission can overturn an election. I wouldn't be surprised if that part is overturned (although I'm certainly no expert on election law or the constitution for that matter). Posted by: MWS at March 25, 2005 09:17 AMAs expected the court battle has just begun. Posted by: c3 at March 25, 2005 02:46 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
